in the epistle. The inference is therefore inevitable that the mythical chapters and Trinitarian formula were absent from the primitive versions of Matthew and Luke in the hands of the bishop; and that he had never heard of, or absolutely rejected, the heretical gospel published in the name of the apostle John; for how otherwise could he have preached salvation through the simple creed of his Epistle to the Philippians?

Thus, independent lines of evidence converge at a point which establishes the orthodoxy of Unitarianism in the second century. We have already seen that Hegesippus, visiting Rome about A.D. 160, after his tour of inspection among the Christian churches, records catholicity of faith among the bishops, harmonising with the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord' -a creed which most assuredly excluded the deification of Jesus through Platonic or Trinitarian mysticism; and now we hold an epistle, written by one of the bishops contemporary with Hegesippus, and clearly attesting the truth of his statements.

6

The Epistle of Barnabas, accepted by Clement of Alexandria and Origen as the work of an apostle, becomes, in the light of modern criticism, an apocryphal book of the second century from the pen of an unknown author, seeking to confer perfect knowledge' on his readers through fanciful interpretations of erroneous quotations from Hebrew Scripture, mingled with extracts from works as apocryphal as his own. When, therefore, under the impression that he is inspired with knowledge of sacred mysteries, he tells us that, when God said, 'Let us make man in our image,' He

addressed the pre-existent Messiah, we necessarily seek some more reliable exponent of primitive Christology.

The Pastor of Hermas, accepted by Clement of Alexandria and Irenæus as the divinely-inspired work of the Apostolic Hermas named in the Epistle to the Romans, is the Pilgrim's Progress of some primitive Bunyan of the second century, accepting, as miraculous visions, the fantastic creations of his own imagination. And as his Christology depicts the Son of God as the Holy Spirit incarnate in the man Jesus,1 modern Trinitarians necessarily decline to canonise his work, although sustained by the same ancient authorities who authenticated the present books of the New Testament.

Passing from the Apostolic to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, to whom we owe the evolution of the Trinitarian mystery, we first turn to Justin, who was born in Palestine about A.D. 114, and suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, about A.D. 165. He commenced life as an ardent student of philosophy, first as the pupil of a Stoic, then of a Pythagorean, and finally of an eminent professor of Platonism, whose lessons filled him with admiration of the divine wisdom disclosed in the system of its illustrious founder.

Whilst indulging philosophic flights in contemplative solitude, Justin was one day addressed by a venerable stranger, through whose conversation his attention was directed to Christianity, with the ultimate result of his conversion. But so ignorant was his anonymous mentor of the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, that he recommended no surer guides to the knowledge of Christ than the ancient Hebrew prophets. Instead, therefore, of con1 Similitude V. chap. vi.

sulting the orthodox bishops, with whom his contemporary Hegesippus had conversed, Justin mingled, in strange confusion, his own fanciful interpretations of the Septuagint with the foregone conclusions of Platonism, and became an independent preacher, at Rome, of doctrines which were then external to the creed of Orthodoxy.

The extant works of Justin, generally accepted as authentic, are two Apologies for Christianity, and the Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew. Justin is our first Christian author who assigns definite Divinity to Jesus. He anticipates Irenæus in accepting the supernatural birth through the verbal infallibility of the Septuagint, quoting, in proof of the miracle, not merely the famous passage supposed to establish the prodigy of virgin maternity, but the following words from the Psalmist :

In the beauties of thy holiness have I begotten thee from the womb, before the morning star'-thus translated in the Anglican version:-'In the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning, thou hast the dew of thy youth.' And in the margin :- In the beauties of holiness, more than the womb of the morning, thou shalt have the dew of thy youth." This passage, interpreted through the inspired translation in his hands, Justin accepts as a prediction of the miraculous birth and proof positive of the pre-existence of Jesus.2

In his controversy with Trypho Justin accuses the Jews of mutilating the Scriptures, and in proof of his statement quotes from Esdras :-'If you will not believe him, and will not attend to his words, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations'-but this passage has no

1 Ps. cx. 3.

2 Dialogue with Trypho lxiii.

existence in any modern version. Again, as a prophecy of the crucifixion, he quotes from Psalm xcvi.:-‘ Say among the nations that the Lord reigneth from the wood.' The words in italics, accepted by Justin as an inspired prediction of the death of the Messiah, and consequent proof of Christianity, are an interpolation, through which we learn how fictitious were the materials at the disposal of Justin for the evolution of his Christology.

Justin, unwilling to part with his favourite Platonism, adopts the impossible theory that the Athenian philosopher borrowed his system from Moses.1 Thus, in the Timæus, Plato speaks of the soul of the world, as impressed on the universe in the form of a χίασμα, or letter x. This,' says Justin, 'is borrowed from Moses; for when the Israelites were bitten by fiery serpents in the wilderness, the prophet, inspired by God, formed a brazen cross, by looking on which the sufferers were healed. Plato reading these things, and not clearly understanding the figure of the cross, said that the Power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And he speaks of a third (Divinity) because he read of Moses saying:-The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Thus, the first of the Ante-Nicene Fathers discloses the Platonic source of Trinitarianism, as yet but embryonic in constructive Christianity.

Philo, in fusing Platonic with Hebrew theosophy, assumes that the Logos is the God of Israel; but Justin teaches that the Mosaic Jehovah, the Platonic Logos, and the Incarnate Christ, are personally identical, as

11 Apology lx.

the secondary God or angel, who, as the Minister of the Supreme Deity, came down to inspect the tower of Babel, shut up Noah in the ark, appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and finally assumed the form of Jesus of Nazareth, in the great drama of Galilee.1

Justin also personifies the Word and Wisdom of Hebrew Scripture as the Christ, and detects, in the metaphorical flights of David and Solomon, the preexistence and divinity of the Son of Man.

The views of Justin respecting the Holy Spirit are too indefinite to identify his teaching with the later doctrine of the Trinity. His conclusions, in fact, establish the existence of two distinct gods, who preserve unity in divine administration, through the implicit obedience of the inferior Deity. Jesus, according to Justin, may be the Son, Wisdom, the Word, the Logos, the Lord, and even God, but he is also the Angel, ministering to the will of the Supreme Deity from whom he derives existence, power, and divinity, and could not therefore have claimed the divine equality, assigned to him in the Trinitarian mystery of later generations.

The deification of Jesus was, however, a merely speculative problem in the mind of Justin, evolved through arbitrary and fanciful interpretation of ambiguous passages in the Septuagint; for, in his controversy with the Hebrew, Trypho, he says:- There are some of our community who admit that Jesus is Christ, but maintain he is a man born of man. Now though I should fail to prove his pre-existence as the Son of God, it will be more correct to say that I am mistaken in this 1 Dialogue with Trypho cxxvii.